[OPS-NM] RE: [nmrg] Re: Comments Question about draft-xu-cops-push-00.txt

If the goal is to use XML, then why reinvent the wheel on webservices
for management outside of the W3C and DMTF? 
SNMP, COPS, DIAMETER, NETCONF... Where does it end?

Is there an RFC that does a thorough analysis of the alternatives
(IETF's and other standards bodies' included) in terms of capabilities,
latency, bandwidth, complexity, backward compatibility and other such
quantitative metrics? If not, this might be a helpful activity as the
mailing list discussions quickly become crystal ball gazing and
philosophical in nature. Then folks can figure out if their requirements
make a better fit for one protocol over another. 

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
[mailto:nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:47 AM
> To: xuheyuan
> Cc: Tina Tsou; ops-nm@ietf.org; dongsun@alcatel-lucent.com; Romascanu,
Dan
> (Dan); Hexian Huang; Tom-PT Taylor; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; ops-
> area@ietf.org
> Subject: [nmrg] Re: Comments Question about draft-xu-cops-push-00.txt
> 
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:19:18PM +0800, xuheyuan wrote:
> 
> > At that time the Re reference point, merged into Rw reference point
> > later, controlled the IP edge, actually an IP-IP gateway. In the
> > current network, most existing IP-IP gateways are routers, which
> > support COPS already. In reality, using COPS is the quickest way to
> > do that as described in approach 2 in this draft.
> 
> I have routers that support NETCONF in my lab and no routers
> supporting COPS-PR or COPS.  Perhaps this is why our views of the
> world are somewhat different.
> 
> > COPS-PR by nature does policy control, Rw interface mainly does
> > policy control dynamically, not just push configuration
> > information. Besides, in 2005,NETCONF was a pretty new protocol, and
> > few existing routers supported NETCONF.
> 
> I never understood the distinction between configuration and policy
> information when it comes to the device interface. The PDP is the
> policy engine and what comes out of this engine as provisioning
> information is for me not really distinct from configuration data
> coming out of other systems (e.g. customer provisioning systems).
> 
> I agree that NETCONF was pretty new in 2005 and it still is in 2007.
> COPS-PR is older but as far as I can tell not too widely implemented
> and the number of people within the IETF who do understand COPS-PR
> well is like to be somewhat smaller than the number of people within
> the IETF who understand NETCONF and my impression was that COPS-PR
> awareness declines.
> 
> > As RACF supports both fix and mobile, push and pull modes, in the
> > real networking, PD-FE may possibly support both modes, and in pull
> > modes, COPS is very effective, so, in push mode, if approach 2 COPS
> > could be adopted, it will simplify the implementation.
> 
> The implementation simplification is a relative thing (if you have
> COPS, using COPS is simple, if you have NETCONF, using NETCONF is
> simple). Not sure how to make a decision on this.
> 
> Again, I like to see the discussion raised to the technical level to
> first understand if NETCONF could do what you need it to do equally
> well or whether there is any technical feature that really
> distinguishes COPS-PR from NETCONF.
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		 Jacobs University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
> Germany
> --
> !! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list.
> !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe
or
> adjust
> !! your settings, send a mail message to
<nmrg-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> !! or look at https://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.

_______________________________________________
OPS-NM mailing list
OPS-NM@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm